From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58134) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnkv1-00016C-Lr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:47:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnkuy-0008A4-H0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:47:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52940) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnkuy-00089r-C6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:47:08 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 711325145F for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:47:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:47:04 +0000 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20170314114704.GJ2652@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" References: <20170313124434.1043-1-quintela@redhat.com> <20170314102142.GC2445@work-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170314102142.GC2445@work-vm> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/16] Multifd v4 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Cc: Juan Quintela , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:21:43AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Juan Quintela (quintela@redhat.com) wrote: > > Hi > > > > This is the 4th version of multifd. Changes: > > - XBZRLE don't need to be checked for > > - Documentation and defaults are consistent > > - split socketArgs > > - use iovec instead of creating something similar. > > - We use now the exported size of target page (another HACK removal) > > - created qio_chanel_{wirtev,readv}_all functions. the _full() name > > was already taken. > > What they do is the same that the without _all() function, but if it > > returns due to blocking it redo the call. > > - it is checkpatch.pl clean now. > > > > Please comment, Juan. > > High level things, > a) I think you probably need to do some bandwidth measurements to show > that multifd is managing to have some benefit - it would be good > for the cover letter. Presumably this would be a building block to solving the latency problems with post-copy, by reserving one channel for use transferring out of band pages required by target host page faults. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|